climate change/land use change scenarios for assessing threats...
TRANSCRIPT
1USGS Western Geographic Science Center, Menlo Park, CA, 2USGS California Water Science Center, Sacramento, CA , 3USGS Science and Decisions Center, Reston, VA, 4Defenders of Wildlife, Sacramento, CA,
Climate change/land use change scenarios for
assessing threats to ecosystem services on
California rangelands
Kristin Byrd1, Lorraine Flint2, Frank Casey3, and Pelayo Alvarez4
March 18, 2013
Ecosystem services provided by rangelands
• Food, fiber and fuel
• Wildlife habitat
• Water
• Carbon sequestration
• Adaptation to climate
change
• Open space, cultural
values
Integrated Threats to Rangelands
• In California 20,000 acres
of rangelands are lost
every year
• Privately owned
• Cattle ranching: low profits
• Low levels of protection
Land conversion and climate change lead to
loss of grazing land, water availability, and
altered species distribution
Rangeland Coalition Focus
Area Map (TNC, 2007)
http://www.carangeland.org/focusarea.html
Dark blue: Critical Conservation Areas
(Privately-owned rangelands
that have high biodiversity value and
require conservation action in the next
2-10 years.)
Project Goals
• Six spatially-explicit climate change/land use change
scenarios from years 2000 – 2100 consistent with three
IPCC emission scenarios and two global climate models –
• Assess potential threats to rangeland ecosystem services
1. wildlife habitat
2. water availability (Lorraine Flint and Alan Flint, USGS)
3. carbon sequestration
A1B (wealth and technology)
1. CSIRO Mark 3.5 GCM (warm, wet future)
2. MIROC 3.2 (medres) (hot, dry future)
A2 (population pressures)
1. PCM (warm, wet future)
2. GFDL CM 2.1 (hot, dry future)
B1 (sustainability)
1. PCM (warm, wet future)
2. GFDL CM 2.1 (hot, dry future)
Project Goals, continued
3. An economic analysis of scenarios to quantify economic
costs and benefits (Frank Casey, USGS)
4. A web-based visualization tool, and
5. An outreach program that will target the Rangeland
Coalition network to communicate how results can be
applied to conservation and land management decisions. (Pelayo Alvarez, Defenders of Wildlife)
Why IPCC emission scenarios?
• Climate scenarios and land use scenarios need to be
logically consistent to form the basis for integrated
assessments and long-term policies (Bierwagen et al.
2010).
• Existing land-use land-cover (LULC) change
modeling and downscaled global climate models
based on the same scenarios – A1B, A2, B1
USGS LULC change scenarios
USGS ensemble projections of climate and hydrology
for California (Lorraine Flint and Alan Flint, USGS)
National Assessment of Ecosystem Carbon
Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/land_carbon/
• Three LULC change scenarios for each EPA
Level III ecoregion (Ben Sleeter, USGS)
• FORE-SCE model: maps of LULC change by
scenario/year (Terry Sohl et al., USGS)
• GEMS biogeochemical model: annual total
ecosystem carbon change per LULC class (S.
Liu et al., USGS)
USGS National Land Cover
Dataset (NLCD)
Scenario Narratives for CA Rangelands
Rancher’s Focus Group, January
2012, Davis CA
Key Concerns about ranching future:
• Limited availability of grazing land
for lease
• Fragmentation of grazing land
• Forage quality and quantity
• High start-up investment
Scenario Narratives for CA Rangelands
– Alternative conservation plans
A1B (wealth and technology)
Development – low density
Agriculture – high value perennial
crops
Conservation – mixed-use emphasis
500,000 acres protected by
2100, near urban centers
A2 (population pressures)
Development – low density
Agriculture – intensive, less
innovation
Conservation – low priority
No active conservation
planning
B1 (sustainability)
Development – high density
Agriculture – moderate
Conservation – biodiversity high
priority
1,000,000 acres protected by 2100, in high
biodiversity areas
Integrated Scenarios
California Rangeland
Conservation Coalition
Focus Area
EPA Level III Eco-regions:
Central Valley and
Chaparral and Oak Woodlands
Maps by scenario/year to 2100 at ~250 meter
resolution
Climate/hydrology decadal change
Land use/land cover change +
Three IPCC scenarios
(A1B, A2, B1)
Two climate models
(warm, wet or hot, dry)
Land-use land-cover change 2006 to 2100; B1, A2, A1B
Ecosystem Services Change (water, carbon,
habitat)
Basin Characterization Model
Runoff, Recharge, Stream Discharge
2010, 2040, 2070, 2100
GEMS biogeochemical model
Total Ecosystem Carbon 2006 – 2050
Change to Priority Conservation Areas (TNC,
2007)
Decadal change 2010 – 2100
Land use-land cover/ Climate/Hydrological
Change
Precipitation
Minimum Winter Temp.
Maximum Summer Temp.
Climatic Water Deficit
Potential Evapotranspiration
Decadal averages 2010 – 2100, 250 meters
FORE-SCE LULC Change Model
Annual maps of land use change 2006-2100, 250
meters
Landscape-level analysis
• Land use/climate
change for
conservation
scenarios
• Water-wildlife
hotspots
Summer maximum temperature by scenario, B1 conservation areas
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
Acr
es
Years
Developed
Agriculture
Hay/Pasture
Grassland
HerbaceousWetland
Shrubland
Forest
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
10000002
00
6
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
Acr
es
Years
LULC change in B1 conservation areas
A2 Scenario B1 Scenario
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100Max
imu
m T
em
pe
ratu
re i(
in
Ce
lsiu
s)
Year
GA2
GB1
PA2
PB1
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
Acr
es
Years
Developed
Agriculture
Hay/Pasture
Grassland
HerbaceousWetland
Woody Wetland
Shrubland
Forest
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
Acr
es
Years
A2 Scenario
Summer maximum temperature by scenario, A1B conservation areas
LULC change in A1B conservation areas A1B Scenario
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Max
imu
m T
em
pe
ratu
re (
in
Ce
lsiu
s)
Year
GA2
PA2
CA1B
ma1b
Water-wildlife hotspots for dry scenarios (draft)
Case Study of Six Watersheds:
North:
Upper Stony
Lower Butte
Central:
Lower Cosumnes
Alameda Creek
South:
Upper Tule
Estrella
Changes in:
• Wildlife habitat
• Carbon
• Runoff, recharge, streamflow
Change in Total Ecosystem Carbon - Upper Stony Watershed
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
Acr
es
A1B
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
A2
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
B1
Developed
Agriculture
Hay/Pasture
Grassland
HerbaceousWetlandWoodyWetlandShrubland
Forest
Habitat Change - Upper Stony Watershed
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
A1B A2 B1
Meg
agra
ms
of
Car
bo
n
Climate Scenario
Grassland
2006
20500
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
A1B A2 B1
Me
gagr
ams
of
Car
bo
n
Climate Scenario
Combined Forest
2006
2050
Year
Change in Total Ecosystem Carbon – Consumnes Mokelumne Watershed
Habitat Change – Consumnes Mokelumne Watershed
Year
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
A1B A2 B1
Me
gagr
ams
of
Car
bo
n
Climate Scenario
Grassland
2006
2050
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
A1B A2 B1
Me
gagr
ams
of
Car
bo
n
Climate Scenario
Combined Forest
2006
2060
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
Acr
es
A1B
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
B1
Developed
Agriculture
Hay/Pasture
Grassland
HerbaceousWetlandWoodyWetlandShrubland
Forest
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
A2
Change in Total Ecosystem Carbon – Alameda Creek Watershed
Habitat Change – Alameda Creek Watershed
Year
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
A1B B1 A2
Me
gagr
ams
of
Car
bo
n
Climate Scenario
Grassland
2006
2050
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
A1B A2 B1
Me
gagr
ams
of
Car
bo
n
Climate Scenario
Combined Forest
2006
2050
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
Acr
es
A1B
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
A2
20
06
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
70
20
80
20
90
21
00
B1
Developed
Agriculture
Hay/Pasture
Grassland
HerbaceousWetlandWoodyWetlandShrubland
Forest
Soil storage affected by soil porosity and soil
depth –
New soil thickness dataset – SSURGO county-
level soil surveys (L. Flint, USGS)
Upper Stony Watershed
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Historic CSIRO A1B MIROC A1B GFDL A2 GFDL B1 PCM A2 PCM B1
Bas
in d
isch
arge
, mill
ion
s o
f m
3
Climate Scenario
Streamflow
2003-2006
2037-2040
2067-2070
2096-2099
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Historic CSIRO A1B MIROC A1B GFDL A2 GFDL B1 PCM A2 PCM B1
Re
char
ge/R
un
off
Rat
io
Climate Scenario
Recharge/Runoff
2003-2006
2037-2040
2067-2070
2096-2099
Alameda Creek Watershed
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Historic CSIRO A1B MIROC A1B GFDL A2 GFDL B1 PCM A2 PCM B1Re
char
ge/R
un
off
Rat
io
Climate Scenario
Recharge/Runoff
2003-2006
2037-2040
2067-2070
2096-2099
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Historic CSIRO A1B MIROC A1B GFDL A2 GFDL B1 PCM A2 PCM B1
Bas
in d
isch
arge
, mill
ion
s o
f m
3
Climate Scenario
Streamflow
2003-2006
2037-2040
2067-2070
2096-2099
Consumnes Mokelumne Watershed
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Historic CSIRO A1B MIROC A1B GFDL A2 GFDL B1 PCM A2 PCM B1
Bas
in d
isch
arge
, mill
ion
s o
f m
3
Climate Scenario
Streamflow
2003-2006
2037-2040
2067-2070
2096-2099
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Historic CSIRO A1B MIROC A1B GFDL A2 GFDL B1 PCM A2 PCM B1
Re
char
ge/R
un
off
Rat
io
Climate Scenario
Recharge/Runoff
2003-2006
2037-2040
2067-2070
2096-2099
Summary
• Potential for C sequestration decreases with area and rate of grassland conversion
• The ratio of recharge to runoff decreases with increasing urbanization (Alameda, Cosumnes)
• Amount of change depends on current soil storage capacity, more change if urbanization on deep soils
• In non-urbanized watersheds, ratio of recharge to runoff can increase in dry years (Upper Stony)
• Has implications on water resource planning – water supply and habitat and need to plan for extreme events
Outreach a) Key messages:
• Inform stakeholders of impacts of climate change and land use change to rangeland ecosystem services
• Decision-making tool for prioritization of climate change mitigation strategies (i.e restoration sites, conservation easements)
• Raise awareness about the importance of rangelands in providing ecosystem services
b) Targets
• Ranches and land managers
• Government agencies
• Non-profits: Ag and conservation organizations
• Others: researchers, planners, legislators, general public
Acknowledgments
Chris Soulard, Western Geographic Science Center, Menlo Park, CA
Adam McClure, Western Geographic Science Center, Menlo Park, CA
Zhiliang Zhu, LandCarbon Project Lead, Reston, VA
Shuguang Liu, EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD
Terry Sohl, EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD
Ben Sleeter, Western Geographic Science Center, Menlo Park, CA
The USGS LandCarbon Team
Funding by the California Landscape Conservation Cooperative